What’s W.R.O.N.G. with ‘Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’?

No new show arrived this fall with more expectations – or punctuation – than ABC’s “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” It was a spin-off of the wildly successful Marvel Comics films. It had Joss Whedon attached as a co-creator (even if he wasn’t going to be around much due to his Marvel movie commitments). ABC was so confident in the thing that it scheduled it opposite “NCIS” and built an entire night of all-new programming around it, under the belief that “S.H.I.E.L.D” would cast a powerful halo around any shows placed near it. It was going to be a blockbuster akin to “Avengers” or “Iron Man,” drawing in viewers from all demographics – and enough of them who weren’t already watching TV in that hour that it could stand on its own opposite TV’s most-watched drama.

It hasn’t turned out that way, however. “SHIELD” debuted to a good-but-not-great audience of around 12 million viewers, but also with a very strong rating among the advertiser-coveted adults 18-49 demographic. But those numbers have gone down with each installment, and by last week’s fifth episode, the demo rating was only a bit more than half of the premiere audience. And the halo effect? Non-existent. Fellow Tuesday rookie “Lucky 7” was the season’s first cancellation, “Trophy Wife” is barely hanging on and even “The Goldbergs” (which begins seconds after the end of each “SHIELD” episode) is a big disappointment relative to the network’s expectations. “SHIELD” is still a success for ABC, especially when you factor in DVR usage, but it’s not an all-ages phenomenon where people feel compelled to watch live or risk missing out on what people will be excitedly discussing the next day.

Because, to be honest, there hasn’t been a lot about “SHIELD” so far to get excited about. Five episodes is a small sample size, and it’s easy to say that most of Whedon’s previous series took a season or more to truly get their bearings. But even through their early growing pains, there were obvious reasons to stick with them. The “Buffy” pilot, for instance, is a solid introduction to that world, and Whedon and Sarah Michelle Gellar instantly made the main character into someone worth watching, regardless of how clunky cheap some of her early adventures were.

“SHIELD” hasn’t even offered that much. I don’t hate it, but if it wasn’t for residual affection for Marvel that goes back to childhood, and a sense of professional curiosity about whether this big corporate behemoth of a show can be made to work, I suspect it would have been consigned to the same place in my viewing priorities as the various USA and TNT shows I sometimes watch if I’m folding laundry or sorting my mail.

There’s still lots of time for “SHIELD” to course-correct, especially since ABC isn’t getting rid of it anytime soon. But as the show pauses this week to rerun its middling pilot episode, it’s time to look at some of the ways in which the creative team – Joss and Jed Whedon and Maurissa Tancharoen, not to mention various execs at Marvel, Disney and ABC – went awry when conceiving this show. And since, as Agent Ward (Brett Dalton) noted in the pilot, someone just really wanted the spy agency’s initials to spell “S.H.I.E.L.D.,” let’s see what we can get out of “A.W.R.Y.”

A: Are there any compelling characters? This is the big one, and may ultimately be irreparable without ditching the bulk of the cast and starting over.

The series was presented as a showcase for Phil Coulson, the SHIELD agent whom Clark Gregg had played in most of the Marvel films up to and including “Avengers.” But the writers seem much more interested in what Coulson is – i.e., how he survived being stabbed in the heart by Loki in “Avengers,” or else how he was brought back to life – than in who he is. He’s a mystery, not a man. His unflappable, self-deprecating manner stood out when he was standing toe to toe with gods and monsters and men in metal suits, but outside the context of those movies, he’s come across as fairly bland, despite Gregg’s gift for delivering Whedon-style punchlines.

And it turns out that Coulson is only nominally the series’ lead, anyway. Much more attention has been given to Ward and on Skye (Chloe Bennet), the anarchist hacker whom Coulson recruited for his team in the pilot. The two get a lot of screen time, whether alone or together, we’ve learned more about their backstories than anyone else, and the question of Skye’s loyalties, and whether Ward can turn her into an honest-to-gosh SHIELD agent, has been given much more weight than the occasional cryptic hints about Coulson’s resurrection. And neither the two actors nor the two characters seem up to the task. Ward is a big block of wood; Skye is a cipher whose blandness the show occasionally tries to distract you from by putting Bennet in a skimpy dress (or, last week, her underwear). The idea that Skye thinks of SHIELD as a bad organization with too much power was an interesting one, especially given real-world controversy over NSA surveillance, but the show only really paid lip service to it, then more or less abandoned the idea altogether last week to give us Skye’s much duller, more generic motivation: she wants SHIELD’s help to find out who her parents were.

So the ostensible leads are all problematic, UK scientists Fitz (Iain De Caestecker) and Simmons (Elizabeth Henstridge) barely even qualify as characters at this point, and are just there to banter in different accents, and Ming-Na Wen’s Melinda May gets to entertainingly beat people up once per episode but is yet another character whose backstory and motivations are being held for a later date.

“SHIELD” has been designed as a superpowered tweak on a police procedural, much like the show it airs against on CBS, but “NCIS” works – ditto “Bones,” “Castle,” “The Mentalist” and every other successful show like it – because the audience invests in the investigators. Nine times out of every ten that I watch “NCIS,” I could not care in the slightest about the case the team is working on, but I like Gibbs and enjoy seeing him interact with Di Nozzo, McGee and the rest. As I said, for all the early struggles of “Buffy,” it had Buffy herself. “SHIELD” has worked exactly backwards of that: when the show has a decently-drawn guest character (J. August Richards as 99-percenter with super strength, Louis Ozawa Changchien as a fame-hungry magician who can shoot flames from his hands), it sort of works, and when the guest stars are completely forgettable, so is the episode.

I can see circumstances under which Coulson or May become more compelling in time, and I’ve even seen Joss Whedon work miracles on characters I initially wrote off (like amoral scientist Topher on “Dollhouse”), but if the next episode of “SHIELD” were to open with time-traveling supervillain Kang removing all six of these leads from existence and replacing them with new characters, I don’t know that I’d genuinely miss any of them.

W: Where is the urgency? The Avengers stopped an alien invasion of New York. Captain America kept the Nazis from stockpiling super weapons that would have shifted the balance of World War II. In his latest film, Iron Man prevented a coup of the U.S. government.

Coulson’s team, meanwhile, chases after alien artifacts, or tries to help a new super learn to use his powers, and it all comes with a vibe so casual it’s surprising Coulson hasn’t traded in his blue suit for a Hawaiian shirt and some flip-flops.

Obviously, “SHIELD” can’t have the scope of the Marvel films, but there has to be some kind of intensity to what’s happening here. The members of the team rarely seem like they care all that much about their latest mission – or about bigger arcs like an evil organization trying to master a formula for superpowers – which makes it hard for the rest of us to.

(This is another area where having so many dud heroes hurts; “NCIS” or “Burn Notice” could get away with having the urgency of the best TV drama of 1987 because viewers were engaged with the characters. Not the case here as of yet.)
R: Really? Nick Fury’s here to complain about the repair bill? In part to goose both live viewing and ratings for “The Goldbergs,” “SHIELD” has revived a mostly-forgotten tradition among TV dramas: the end-of-episode tag, where we get one more scene after the final commercial break. The show has mostly used those tags to tease future storylines, but the second episode concluded with a cameo by Samuel L. Jackson as Coulson’s boss, SHIELD director Nick Fury, who was very unhappy that Coulson and his team had done so much damage to the expensive flying command center Fury had given them. What was designed as an attempt to excite the fans and create more of a connection between the show and the Marvel films instead turned Nick Fury into the world’s most famous example of the Disapproving Black Police Captain archetype, with Coulson just shrugging off all of Fury’s yelling and screaming about the expense. In a couple of minutes, whatever mystique the Marvel films had built around Fury vanished.

In general, “SHIELD” has struggled to draw lines between itself and the movies, not only because Robert Downey Jr. isn’t going to be appearing in a tag anytime soon, but because the show was designed to appeal to a broad audience – some of whom may not have seen “Avengers” or the other films (even though the box office success of those movies made them the definition of mainstream crossover hits) – and therefore the creative team is obviously worried about confusing new-to-Marvel viewers. There are oblique references to the Gamma radiation that created the Hulk, or the Extremis syrum that fueled the “Iron Man 3” villains, but that’s usually as far as it goes. These are just boring spies who occasionally throw around a few keywords related to movies we all enjoyed much more.

Based on the shrinking audience, I would guess that they already lost most of the casual, Marvel-averse audience, and would be wise to play to their strengths. There are 50-plus years of comic book stories about SHIELD, and many, many more stories and characters from the Marvel universe. Don’t resist going nerdy because you’re trying to bring in a big tent audience that’s already abandoned you; be about what you’re actually about, to the best of your ability to do so. More often than not, works of entertainment designed to be accessible by everyone wind up exciting no one.

Y: You spent how much on this? Look, we know that they don’t have the “Avengers” budget to play with. But this is a show produced for a broadcast network, backed by some huge entertainment conglomerates, and yet it often appears to have been assembled for less money than something on Syfy. The action scenes are usually quick and (other than Melinda May showing off her bonafides) forgettable, the visual effects chintzy. The show’s second episode ever was set largely aboard the team’s plane, which is the sort of cost-saving maneuver a series doesn’t usually have to resort to until it’s late in a season and the budget is getting tight.

On its own, this isn’t a killer problem, but if “SHIELD” isn’t offering interesting protagonists or stories and isn’t taking advantage of its Marvel ties, then the least it could offer is some spectacle. And we’re not getting that, either.

Again, it’s early. All of these episodes were made before anyone involved knew what the ratings were, knew what the audience was or wasn’t responding to, etc. There’s still a chance to make “Agents of SHIELD” into a show worthy of excitement over what it actually is. Right now, though, it’s a show where you can only be excited about what it represents.

I also feel like casting is the shows other big problem. Gregg and Wen are fine, but with everyone else incredibly bland. I feel like older, established actors (like Jamie Bamber from BSG in the Ward role) could have given the show more impact.

By: Bongo Bob

10.29.2013 @ 11:40 PM

There’s more fiction in this article than on the show! Sloppy journalism at its finest.

By: milaxx

10.29.2013 @ 1:21 PM

The biggest waste of space are Grant & Chloe. They are the boring bland wonder twins. No one cares about them. The last two episodes that had more engagement with the wacky scientist with accents and the kickass May were a step in the right direction. Send Grant & Chole off on some long range mission and bring in more interesting characters and the show might be worth watching first airing. As it is now, it’s been delegated to DVR’ing and watching on the weekend.

By: Burkey

10.29.2013 @ 1:23 PM

Someone described Agents of Shield as “‘Chuck’ with a budget and none of the charm/self-awareness.” I thought that summed it up pretty perfectly.

By: geekfurious

10.29.2013 @ 2:51 PM

CHUCK seasons 1 and 2 had a budget and were amazing.

By: milaxx

10.29.2013 @ 6:46 PM

That’s an insult to Chuck

By: Dock

10.29.2013 @ 11:18 PM

Yeah, this is what it reminds me of in some ways too. But late game Chuck at that. And no where near as fun or sexy as Chuck. It’s a poor man’s Chuck with slight comic-movie references. TV gold amirite?

By: RY33

10.30.2013 @ 3:06 PM

I watched “Chuck” for three seasons.It made me want to come back the next week. I can barely get through an episode of this show.

By: ed w

10.31.2013 @ 1:54 PM

It’s just NCIS with more exotic gadgets. The basic team structure is directly comparable to the NCIS formula.

By: robsully

11.05.2013 @ 5:39 PM

Good point. The biggest difference to me is that I genuinely cared about characters like Chuck, Sarah, Casey or Morgan. It was a pretty well executed show with tons of heart. I have no attachment to any of the SHIELD characters with the exception of Coulson, which is only as a result of the films.

By: Amy

10.29.2013 @ 1:25 PM

:if the next episode of “SHIELD” were to open with “…if time-traveling suppervillain Kang removing all six of these leads from existence and replacing them with new characters, I don’t know that I’d genuinely miss any of them.”

Way harsh, Tai. If it helps, Iain de Caestecker is genuinely talented, based on his work on the BBC series The Fades. Too bad he’s stuck in a nothing role. Coulson does not seem to be designed a lead character, and the series proves it. May could probably be a better lead, actually, but I’ll save my opinion for when they give Ming-Na something more to do apart from glower.

I think SHIELD strayed too far from the Whedons’ wheelhouse, which is mistrust of the big, bad authority figures who just want to control us, man. Now that they’re writing for an international, shadowy, technically-advanced power, they’re at a loss to make that interesting.

The Nick Fury cameo actually put a spike in my original hoped-for twist, which was that the (obvious) Coulson life-model decoy was commissioned by an evil mirror organization, and Ward, May, Manic Pixie Dream Hacker and the Science Twins were lured into thinking they worked for the good guys because they were either burnouts, newbies, or nobody liked working with them. Ah well.

Btw, and sorry to nitpick, but Fitz is Scottish, not English.

By: Amy

10.29.2013 @ 1:33 PM

Editing because I’ll go crazy if I don’t:

Par 1: “If the next episode of “SHIELD” were to open with time-traveling suppervillain Kang removing all six of these leads from existence and replacing them with new characters, I don’t know that I’d genuinely miss any of them.”

Par 2: Coulson does not seem to be designed to be a lead character, and the series proves it.

There. Sorry.

By: TheGuest

10.29.2013 @ 3:37 PM

“I’ll save my opinion for when they give Ming-Na something more to do apart from glower.”

What makes you think she can do anything more than that? I’ve never found Ming-Na a compelling screen presence- in fact, her presence always indicates a second-tier project to me.

By: David

10.30.2013 @ 3:56 AM

@TheGuest Aww, Mulan’s not second-tier.

By: plat0n

10.30.2013 @ 12:40 PM

@THEGUEST She was amazing in Stargate Universe. She played a very complex character who while often shifting into antagonist territory still remained compelling in its honesty.

By: SGCEO

11.03.2013 @ 11:49 PM

A Government super-spy organisation actually run by an evil terrorist group, with burnouts flying around in a special aircraft looking for dangerous artifacts? In that case maybe Fury was just Dirk Anger in disguise

By: gadgetguy03

10.29.2013 @ 1:30 PM

I am not expecting Iron Man or Thor every week, but at least give me some of the lesser known superheroes.

By: Captain Dude

10.31.2013 @ 11:28 PM

Rumor has it that Spider-Man will make an appearance. Apparently Marvel/Disney got the TV rights to the character back from Sony.

By: SGCEO

11.03.2013 @ 11:43 PM

They could easily have pretty-power Carol Danvers or Hank Pym to establish them a bit before a possible movie appearance. Don’t even need heroes, Marvel have written Samuel Jackson Fury in as the originals son so Fury Sr could turn up with Duggan. At this rate I wish they would just replace everyone with the Nextwave squad, at least then the hunting down of dangerous artifacts would be funny.

By: SGCEO

11.03.2013 @ 11:43 PM

They could easily have pretty-power Carol Danvers or Hank Pym to establish them a bit before a possible movie appearance. Don’t even need heroes, Marvel have written Samuel Jackson Fury in as the originals son so Fury Sr could turn up with Duggan. At this rate I wish they would just replace everyone with the Nextwave squad, at least then the hunting down of dangerous artifacts would be funny.

By: HistoryofMatt

10.29.2013 @ 1:40 PM

Alan,

Lost in all of this dutiful and unsurprising hand-wringing over what it is wrong with SHIELD, is the fact that Arrow, yes, that show on The CW, is completely and totally kicking ass, and has been for over a season now.

Arrow is the superior to SHIELD in every way, and not what I expected from the guy who got Green Lantern so wrong I wanted to give him a stern talking to had I ever had met him (Berlanti) nor the netlet that churned out 6 or 7 truly horrible seasons of Smallville.

Arrow has great characters that we actually care about (well, accept Laurel, but hopefully they’re working to fix that). Arrow has a lead whose woodenness is used as a character trait (he was alone on a island / or became a captain in the Russian Mafia???) to show how he can’t relate to regular people any longer. And even now, Amell, much like David Boreanaz before him, has improved mightily in getting rid of his oak-like expressive ability, and become a better actor, and is always good for one or two key punchlines every episode.

Arrow is also chock full of fantastic supporting characters, from Paul Blackthorne’s Det. Lance, to Emily Bett Rickard’s Felicity Smoak (the break-out character of the show), and Oliver’s trusty right-hand man, sort of his Alfred who can kick ass, David Ramsey’s John Diggle. Not to mention the former mini-Coooper, Willa Holland as a much-improved in the second season sister Thea, Colton Haynes as Roy Harper (Ollie’s future partner Speedy/Arsenal/Red Arrow), Susanna Thompson as Ollie’s mom, and in the first season, the wonderful John Barrowman, as Malcolm Merlyn, Green Arrow’s dark doppelganger.

You want to talk about villains and not being afraid to tap into your comic book roots, Alan, then you need to be watching Arrow. We’ve had the aforementioned Merlyn the Dark Archer, Deadshot, The Doll Maker, China White, Bronze Tiger, Count Vertigo, and we’ve been spending considerable time with Slade Wilson, otherwise known as the master assassin Deathstroke, as well as Shado, the woman who, before the horrible New 52 DC relaunch event, was a ninja assassin and the mother of Ollie’s son and co-Green Arrow, Connor.

Yeah, Arrow had some ups and downs in the first season, but honestly, not as many most shows. It was mostly up. Berlanti gave us a character with a very clear motivation, only to have everything turn upside down on him in the finale. Now, in the second season, Berlanti has tweaked Ollie’s motivation and modus operendi, but did it in a way that isn’t cheap or tacked-on, that is completely organic in the world of the show.

Yes, it’s a show on The CW, so we do have some requisite soapy BS (hey, even Supernatural has to deal with that). But for the most part, it’s a lot of butt-kicking fun and insane episode to episode cliff hangers and final reveals.

It’s amazing that while DC is struggling to get great characters like Green Lantern or Wonder Woman to work on the big screen, they’re making Green Arrow work so well on the small screen.

And did I mention that this season of Arrow will include the origin story of the Scarlett Speedster himself, Barry Allen, The Flash???

If you asked me, Alan… you’re watching the wrong show. The first season of Arrow is available on Netflix.

I suggest a marathon in your future.

By: gadgetguy03

10.29.2013 @ 2:02 PM

I agree. As a fan of both shows I am blown away by Arrow this season. It’s making me more of a DC guy on the TV front. Marvel will always rock the movies but in terms of TV comic book stories Arrow is great. It makes me wonder if Marvel shouldn’t scrap SHIELD and focus on a lesser character. I had no idea who Green Arrow was before the show.

By: HistoryofMatt

10.29.2013 @ 2:12 PM

Gadget,

When Marvel was throwing around the idea for a TV Show, and with Whedon producing, so many of us figured it would be Heroes for Hire staring Luke Cage (Power Man), Danny Rand (The Immortal Iron Fist), and Jessica Jones.

These stories would’ve been great, as perpetually broke new parents Luke Cage and Jessica Jones rope their friend Danny Rand into using their superpowers for hire to help people in order to pay the bills.

Yes, it’s like Angel Investigations (We Help the Hopeless), but that’s only because Whedon and Greenwalt kind of stole that idea from Heroes for Hire in the first place.

So, I was disappointed when I heard Marvel wasn’t doing Heroes for Hire, but when I heard Coulson Lives for SHIELD, I felt better, but the execution has been poor.

And I think we all know why: Not the REAL Whedon. Or should I say, the show is written/run by the LESSER Whedon. Jed is not Joss.

It’s brutal truth, but truth nonetheless.

By: Arrow

10.29.2013 @ 2:38 PM

I’m watching the first season right now; I’m half-way there I think. I find it average so far, with some pretty serious flaws. The biggest one is that it’s pretty much a soap. There is at least one scene per episode that makes me face-palm because of how far it is from how real persons would react. And whoever thought “the hood” was a better name than Green Arrow needs to explain himself. Why would you describe a vigilante by his hood when he is using a bow and arrows in this century?

That said, the advantage the show has over SHIELD is undeniable: it very much realise how cool is toy box is. While the decision to eliminate super powers might prove problematic down the line, the show is trying to use its library to its full extent. SHIELD seems to have decided that it would live or die by its characters. So far it’s dying.

By: BrettPoker

10.29.2013 @ 2:39 PM

I’d much rather Alan review Arrow. That show is extremely entertaining. Agents of S.H.E.I.L.D.? No so much.

By: HistoryofMatt

10.29.2013 @ 2:43 PM

Arrow,

My only advice, is stick to it.

As far as powers, they’re not eliminated by any means. Trust me.

And as far as the name goes, there’s a reason why he is The Hood in the first season. Finish that season and then catch up with this season.

There are flaws as I said, but unlike you, I never saw them as glaring.

And the soapy stuff is about the same level as Supernatural, and never approaches the horrendousness of Smallville.

By: Arrow

10.29.2013 @ 2:59 PM

HistoryOfMatt

Of course, I will stick with both shows. Geekiness is an addiction, not a lifestyle.

I’m glad they move away from the “realistic” villains; even the villains of the Dark Knight trilogy were pretty similar to their comic counterpart and I was afraid the show was stretching its credibility too much by trying to make itself more believable, if it makes any sense. I’m also glad he will drop that hood name eventually.

Either way, one of my friends might play a role in the show so I will stick with it at least until then and give it a real shot.

By: Darkdoug

10.29.2013 @ 3:10 PM

The world is truly upside down if a spinoff of The Avengers is being upstaged by a ripoff of the most ridiculous aspect of The Avengers: an archer superhero.

And spare me the geek avalanche of how I should sit down and read 300 comic books to understand how awesome Hawkeye REALLY is or whether or not Hawkeye or Arrow are ripoffs of each other or of some older superhero who fought Nazis in propaganda comics in the 1940s.

Guns were invented for a reason. There is literally nothing a bow can do that a gun cannot, aside from leaving an arrow sticking out of something for dramatic visual effect. A crossbow could do the exact same thing and leave one hand free, instead of occupying both, so your muscular archer loses a fight to a slender woman whose biggest muscles are holding up her breasts.

I actually went through Jeremy Renner’s IMDB page and found out that of all his roles, only four are likely to lose a fight to his superhero character, because most of Jeremy Renner’s roles use automatic weapons. If your superhero is the least effective combatant of all your film and TV roles, maybe that superhero sucks.

By: HistoryofMatt

10.29.2013 @ 3:23 PM

Um, Doug… please get back on your meds.

First of all, Hawkeye of The Avengers is the ripoff character, so strike one.

Second, you use a bow because it is silent. Guns, even guns with silencers, are anything by silent. Also, you can trade a bullet back to the gun that fired it, and then trace the gun back to a person. It’s called ballistics (yay, science!). Unless you’re stupid enough to not make your own arrows, you can’t trace an arrow back to a bow, or a person. Strike two.

Third, using a bow gives you MANY advantages over a crossbow. First is range. If you can kill someone at a range of 100 meters, makes it much easier to get away, or safely do your business as a distance. Second, is speed. A trained archer can fire off maybe 5 arrows in the time it takes to reload a large crossbow. Third is that the bow can be used as a weapon in close quarters battle, a crossbow cannot. That’s strike three.

You’re out.

Please take your misplaced and weird nerd rage somewhere else. ;-)

By: Dr. Dunkenstein

10.29.2013 @ 3:27 PM

But could Superman outrun the Flash?

By: Arrow

10.29.2013 @ 3:27 PM

Hawkeye and Green Arrow are both terrific hand-to-hand fighters as well and I don’t imagine either of them having trouble wiping out the whole cast of Agents of SHIELD.

By: HistoryofMatt

10.29.2013 @ 3:32 PM

Dr. Dunkenstein,

It depends on which Flash we’re talking about.

Don’t believe what the excellent Young Justice show taught you: Wally is the fastest man who ever lived.

Barry’s top speed was fast than sound, but needed the Cosmic Treadmill to go faster.

Wally has ran faster than light and entered into the Speed Force.

Barry is marginally faster than Superman. Walt and Bart are infinitely faster.

Or, at least that’s the way it was before the aforementioned horrible New 52 relaunch.

Now, I think it is Barry who is fastest.

By: smreyno

10.29.2013 @ 3:35 PM

A key difference between “SHIELD” and “Arrow” (a show I do think is quite fun) that I didn’t see mentioned is that Greg Berlanti is actually involved day-to-day with “Arrow,” and was on the ground in its early days to make course corrections and develop scripts to turn the show into something reliably entertaining. Joss Whedon is never going to have that kind of involvement in “SHIELD,” and it’s being steered by hands that I don’t have very much confidence in.

By: HistoryofMatt

10.29.2013 @ 3:37 PM

Dr. Dunkenstein,

Well, I thought I answered you, but it isn’t showing up:

It depends on which Flash you’re talking about, and which version of which Flash.

The New 52 Barry is way faster than Superman. Or I think he is. I hate the New 52, so I’m iffy on that.

Prior to that horrendous re-write of the DCU, Wally, not Barry, was the fastest man ever. While Barry could run faster than sound, he needed the Cosmic Treadmill to go much faster. Whereas Wally could run almost as fast as light, and at one point, ran faster than light and entered into the Speed Force.

And Bart was also faster than Barry.

But now I think it’s all different. Before, Barry was maybe only slightly faster than Superman. Wally and Bart were infinitely faster.

Now I think Barry is faster.

By: TheGuest

10.29.2013 @ 3:43 PM

HistoryofMatt laments:

“And I think we all know why: Not the REAL Whedon. Or should I say, the show is written/run by the LESSER Whedon. Jed is not Joss.”

Um, no. It IS the “real Whedon” – the one who would put his name and association with a subpar product like this. I’m sure Joss is crying all the way to the bank over SHIELD-critical articles like this.

The hero-worship is getting a little over the top at this point.

By: Slushy

10.29.2013 @ 8:45 PM

I think Arrow is super entertaining. It’s the show that’s most like a (superhero) comic book in my opinion. Yeah a lot of the show is really silly, but it’s great fun and they use tons of characters from the comics.

By: Trevor

10.29.2013 @ 10:10 PM

HistoryofMatt – You’re walking some seriously thin ice when it comes to Alan’s rules. Talk about the show, not about each other.

By: sepinwall

10.29.2013 @ 11:22 PM

Matt, go read the commenting rules. Then take several deep breaths. Then read the commenting rules again. You’re busting several at once here. Comment deleted. More will be if it continues.

By: Ed G.

10.29.2013 @ 1:53 PM

But at least they have a bar. A REALLY NICE BAR!

By: TheGuest

10.29.2013 @ 3:38 PM

If you want to see superheroes on a plane, I suggest the Australian show DANGER 5.

By: tamanduabeijo

10.29.2013 @ 1:56 PM

I’m not hating SHIELD or anything but is there any way ABC/Marvel could just bring in the cast, writers and show runners from the cheaper, yet superior Alphas? While it certainly had its flaws, Alphas was light years ahead of anything I’ve seen on SHIELD in terms of character development. It’s a shame it was cancelled shortly before a similar show got lavished with attention and resources from a major network.

By: Charles Purvis

10.29.2013 @ 3:04 PM

AMEN! I was just saying to my wife this morning that watching SHIELD has made me really really miss Alphas.

By: Joseph

10.29.2013 @ 3:45 PM

That’s a great idea; a Marvel-universe based Alphas show would be awesome.

At the same time, the fact that 5 episodes in the show is not a complete disaster, and has potential, is enough for me at the moment. As a commenter noted above, Arrow is indeed kicking ass right now but it took the better part of a season to get there. I’m optimistic SHIELD will get to a similar place.

By: TAMANDUABEIJO

10.30.2013 @ 2:10 PM

Joseph – While I agree that it’s early to declare SHIELD a lost cause, considering how many other good to great shows took some time to find their way, I don’t know if I share your optimism.

I really hope I’m wrong, but thinking back on other genre shows like Fringe or Buffy, even at their most awkward, there were still some consistently enjoyable character beats or fresh group dynamics. SHIELD so far lacks any authentic sense of connection between the characters, which is one of the main qualities I look for in a TV program.

It’s not even that I particularly dislike the characters in SHIELD. But they don’t feel like they exist outside of the scenes they’re in, which is at least as much the fault of the writing as the acting. There are a lot of sins I can overlook in a TV series. Lack of involving characters that play off one another with some feeling is rarely a flaw I can get past though.

By: basedonthenovel

10.29.2013 @ 2:06 PM

I think it was the casting that has sunk this show so far. They seemed to cast Generic Pretty People rather than actors with compelling screen presence. I have thought on occasion that the dialogue would sound a lot better with different actors bringing the characters to life — Ming Na and Clark Gregg are in a separate category, but the types of characters they play cannot sustain an ensemble on their own.

I think Alan is absolutely right about Coulson being a mystery not a man in this show.

By: Darkdoug

10.29.2013 @ 3:23 PM

That casting issue is one thing I noticed about previous Whedon shows. Sarah Michelle Gellar, Allison Hannigan, Amy Acker and Eliza Dushku are hardly traditionally actor-pretty. They are all attractive women, but not necessarily in the same way that the girls of MAoS are. Charisma Carpenter was the closest Whedon girl to that standard, and she was an antagonist at the start. Firefly was more on the mark, but also leaned heavily to ethnic types, with even Summer Glau having a kind of exotic look. Again, the antagonistic Christina Hendricks was the lone exemplar of white, traditional TV beauty.

And on Whedon’s shows, the characters were characters first, and if their attractiveness was necessary to the plot, they worked with it. They didn’t fall back on cheap tricks like scanty costumes (more often, it seems like Whedon’s female characters get buried in yards of fabric for 18th or 19th century gowns, than slinky cocktail dresses).

This has all the hallmarks of selling out and losing the things that made his shows good. And Skye’s character arc has been one enormous missed opportunity in that regard. Whedon told awesome stories about the ambiguity involved in selling out with the final season of Angel, and he’s always had a fondness for setups like SHIELD and the balance between the power to do great good and the corruption it entails. Elements of SHIELD have been present in all his shows, whether the Initiative or the Dollhouse or Wolfram & Hart, and if Firefly had run longer, they’d have probably got one as well.

But that is, as Alan pointed out, not being handled well at all.

By: Dr. Dunkenstein

10.29.2013 @ 3:28 PM

In what universe is Sarah Michelle Gellar or Eliza Dushku not traditionally actor-pretty

By: jenfullmoon

10.29.2013 @ 3:48 PM

Usually WhedonCo is great on casting. I don’t know what the hell happened here. Seriously, it does seem like the only way to fix this show is to nuke everybody but Coulson. Maybe save Melinda if they bother to give her more to do.

By: basedonthenovel

10.29.2013 @ 6:27 PM

The vast majority of actors are conventionally attractive and that goes for Whedonverse actors, too. But SMG and Eliza Dushku are great examples of conventionally beautiful women who are also charismatic and talented screen performers. I feel like on TV these days we get a lot of blandly similar pretty faces at the expense of screen presence.

By: Trevor

10.29.2013 @ 10:16 PM

Great post DarkDoug, except I think your point is undercut by suggesting that Michelle-Gellar isn’t traditionally “actor-pretty.”

If anything, the fact that she WAS a traditionally pretty, blonde-haired, big-toothed, white, Hollywood CA teen was purposeful in how Buffy played against audience’s expectations.

By: tigger500

10.29.2013 @ 2:14 PM

I may be the only viewer who doesn’t hate Chloe Bennett or Skye, but the rest of this I largely agree with.

By: tigger500

10.29.2013 @ 2:14 PM

I may be the only viewer who doesn’t hate Chloe Bennett or Skye, but the rest of this I largely agree with.

By: geekfurious

10.29.2013 @ 2:50 PM

She’s the only reason I watch.

By: David

10.29.2013 @ 7:31 PM

Chloe Bennett is actually funny and has some charisma. Her character is just woefully underwritten. Like Alan said, looking for her parents is SUCH a boring plot device, unless her parents are Victor Von Doom and Janet Van Dyne.

By: Drew Melbourne

10.29.2013 @ 2:18 PM

I think there’s a pretty strong consensus that the show, despite pretty good ratings, is under performing quality-wise. It’ll be interesting to see what sort of course correction we see after the first batch of episodes. (I’m assuming they filmed 13 up front, prior to the pick up?) Hopefully the cast and crew have a sense of what’s not working and can execute a plan to fix it…

By: David

10.30.2013 @ 4:00 AM

No, they’re probably less than a month ahead with shooting; they were probably shooting episode 4 or 5 when the pilot aired. The announcements for casting tended to be around a month or a bit longer before the episode aired.

By: DFT

10.29.2013 @ 2:37 PM

I enjoyed the Sam Jackson cameo, but otherwise I generally agree with all of this. The fact that so many entertainment blogs/websites are posting “How to fix SHIELD” stories has to be getting their attention. Hopefully the back 9 episodes of season 1 will go a different direction.

By: Trev

10.29.2013 @ 2:46 PM

In addition to Arrow on the CW Tomorrow People, in my opinion, is a vastly better show than SHIELD. It has all the ingredients of a CW show but I actually look forward to watching that show on Wednesday. I have the last 2 eps of SHIELD in my DVR and I don’t know what I’m going to watch them. I have no motivation to. I like the tone of TP better than SHIELD. It doesn’t hurt to have Peyton List on the show, aka the former Mrs. Sterling on Madmen.

By: Jessy

10.30.2013 @ 8:46 PM

But keep in mind that Tomorrow People has already been a show twice. They’ve had much longer to gauge what works for their premise than SHIELD.

By: geekfurious

10.29.2013 @ 2:49 PM

The only good superhero show in recent history was ALPHAS and no one watched it. So they now made a show about people who kind of work with superheroes… and it’s not very good. And of course people watch it.

By: basedonthenovel

10.29.2013 @ 6:32 PM

LOL at “people who kind of work with superheroes.” Accurate.

By: joel

10.29.2013 @ 10:32 PM

To be fair, the reason people are watching one and not the other has nothing to do with the premise of either show.

By: milaxx

10.30.2013 @ 1:26 AM

True, but it was also on SyFy and not really promoted. I think I saw Malik on the Wendy Williams show talking about the show and that’s it.

By: peet

10.29.2013 @ 2:54 PM

a friend finally made the clear case as to why he and I don’t “love” SHIELD – it’s because we’re not 12yr olds.

plus, I can’t believe I far prefer SleepyHollow… If you’d told me that before the series started I would have sort-laughed at you.

By: milaxx

10.29.2013 @ 6:53 PM

The premise sounded odd, but Sleepy Hollow has turned out to be the superior show.

By: Jaycee

10.31.2013 @ 7:48 PM

I totally agree…it’s a shame Sleepy Hollow is doing a break right now :(

By: salticid

10.29.2013 @ 3:01 PM

Really?

I just about flipped my sh#t when Samuel L popped up as Fury after Iron Man. Right then and there I knew I was in for a long haul love affair.

Conversely, when Fury (so expectedly) tagged SHIELD – my heart completely sank. A caricature that swiftly bastardized the enterprise; if *that* is how they choose to use a cameo of the head – the joke is on them. Pfft.

Ron Glass is the only remaining hope I have for the series. And that is fleeting at best.

A previous Whedon I once knew played to the intelligence of the audience. So pathetically ironic that an *intelligence* agency now drastically undermines its own validity. No sophistication whatsoever – and Samuel L’s appearance pretty much personifies the inane caricaturizations of the Whedon head himself.

E.M.P.T.Y. Egregious Marvel Portrayal Tastelessly Yaks

By: dead souls

10.29.2013 @ 3:03 PM

SHIELD is so bad that I don’t even think it’s salvageable. Not only is every character awful, but the writing is just bad.

By: Captain Dude

10.31.2013 @ 11:33 PM

I disagree. The show is almost a reboot of most 80’s action shows where your expectations are turned on their head (Coulson injecting his own agent with the truth serum, but is it truth serum, etc.). I also enjoy the lampshading of comic book tropes like the “They gave him a name” thing.

I’m also glad it hasn’t done what its contemporaries often do and turn it into a “freak of the week” show. They’ve set up one or two major villains already, which is a nice slow-burn alternative to the usual baddie-gets-powers, baddie-is-evil, baddie-is-destroyed one-hour arc and nothing else.

By: Matt

10.29.2013 @ 3:05 PM

The blandness is discouraging. But the most disappointing thing is that it’s scheduled til 9:01pm to blatantly screw with the DVR settings.

By: Blake

10.29.2013 @ 3:09 PM

With the way it was created, wasn’t it doomed to fail?

Too many masters to please. Demographics instead of creativity. Restrictions on what they could say about, and who they could use from, the Marvel universe.

If the movies didn’t exist, with the complicated skein of rights, this show would have a shot. They could have a Hulk, an Iron Man, a Spider-Man. But as is, the show is hopelessly crippled.

By: milaxx

10.30.2013 @ 1:28 AM

Which is kinda of stupid IMO. They could be using the show to do free promotion for the movies. Even if it’s just tag pieces like the Easter eggs for the movies are. As much of a let down as it turned out to be having Fury show up got a lot of people’s attention.

By: Tyler

10.29.2013 @ 3:11 PM

Why does everyone hate this show? I don’t think it’s that bad. It’s flawed, but it’s better than Twilight and Jersey Shore.

By: rwmcgee

10.29.2013 @ 3:20 PM

Watching grass grow is better than Twilight and Jersey Shore.

By: Dr. Dunkenstein

10.29.2013 @ 3:30 PM

Because criticism isn’t a limbo contest. You don’t get bonus points for how low you set the bar.

By: milaxx

10.29.2013 @ 6:55 PM

damning with faint praise.

By: RP

11.11.2013 @ 10:45 PM

Twilight is a movie and Jersey Shore is a reality TV show. SHIELD is supposed to be an action/crime drama and other commentors have named at least 5 other shows in the genre that are better than this.

The author hit the nail on the head when they said the guest stars are the best part when they’re interesting. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t watch past the 4th episode: they get rid of all the interesting characters. The people we’re left with are bland and predictable.

By: neverthehero

10.29.2013 @ 3:13 PM

Alan, if you are going to say the Joss is occupied with the movies how is it relevant to bring up Buffy? I understand the point being made but different circumstances I’d say.

By: TheGuest

10.29.2013 @ 3:40 PM

Money Changes Everything. The Joss Whedon brand included.

By: sepinwall

10.29.2013 @ 3:52 PM

It’s relevant to bring up Buffy because I’ve heard a number of people defend SHIELD by saying, “Well, Buffy wasn’t Buffy right away.” And even if you pretend Joss is just as involved here, it’s not a fair comparison, because Buffy had Buffy. (The Buffy pilot is also vastly better than any SHIELD episode to date.) Back then, there was a reason to keep watching even before we gave a crap who Joss Whedon was. Here, it seems some people are holding out hope only because of a pattern in prior Joss shows that doesn’t quite apply in this case.

By: dead souls

10.29.2013 @ 7:38 PM

Agreed. And let’s not forget that Buffy premiered in 1997 when there was significantly less to watch on television. Shows need to come out of the gate stronger creatively now. I DVR six things on a typical Tuesday and I greatly prefer any of the other five (The Originals, Supernatural, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Sons of Anarchy, Frontline) to SHIELD.

By: joel

10.29.2013 @ 10:44 PM

Agents of Z.Z.Z.Z.Z. is the most-hyped new show of the season. I’m guessing native tribesmen in the African savannah have heard about it. The fact that critics seem to loathe it but it’s retaining viewers means that as far as meeting the basic needs of a television series, they’ve succeeded.

Buffy, on the other hand, was a TV series based on a movie most people didn’t care much about beyond Paul Rubens’ performance. It was on a network no one watched, and it had an entire cast of unknowns at a time when genre TV was still a rare commodity. It’s amazing that show found an audience, let alone succeeded, when critics and audiences really didn’t start paying attention to it until after its second season. The fact that there were fewer dramas on TV then certainly didn’t help it. The only thing that saved it was that the CW had very little to lose.

Agents of Z.Z.Z.Z.Z. has zero excuse for being this bland and cheap, and yet its technically a success. Buffy, on the other hand, had every reason to fail and yet it showed promise from its first episode. Comparing the two as an excuse for Z.Z.Z.Z.Z. is sort of insulting to Buffy, to be honest.

By: joel

10.29.2013 @ 10:49 PM

Whoops, not the CW, the WB. I confused my teen networks of note.

By: Muuka Muyumba

10.29.2013 @ 3:14 PM

I would infect Ward with gamma radiation and make him some variation of a Hulk who has brains, but can’t control his rage. He will be like a Doc Sampson. Then create an accident that leads to Fitz and Simmons fusing together as a techno-symbiot that corrupts SHIELD servers and ultimately has to be erased.

By: William dmples

10.29.2013 @ 3:16 PM

I don’t get the hate. I just appreciate the show for what it is and where the writers want to take it. It’s not the best show on TV, but it’s coming along just fine in my opinion. For a 8 pm ABC show, it’s pushing the boundaries. I’m not sure why everyone wants to take digs at a show that has 5 eps and is doing quite well in the ratings?

By: Darkdoug

10.29.2013 @ 3:32 PM

While I agree and am enjoying the show for what it is, its pedigree sets the standard very high, and it is being judged not by how high it has gone from zero, but from how short of expectations it has fallen. The association with Whedon has people expecting another Firefly, and the Avengers connection has people expecting something that blew genre-based expectations out of the water.

No one had high hopes for a movie about characters with superpowers, particularly with so many characters beholden to their own franchises and continuity, not to mention ridiculous stuff (archer, flying aircraft carrier) being shoehorned in to satisfy comic book fans. Whedon made it entertaining against all expectations, and now everyone is awaiting great things from another work under that same franchise umbrella, and one of the most trusted TV show creators of the genre.

A grade of B- is perfectly respectable, except in a student who is the progeny of two geniuses, and the younger sibling of the valedictorian. Fairly or not, everyone is going to be measuring it by those who came before.

By: Ryan D

10.29.2013 @ 7:01 PM

I honestly can’t say that I’ve seen much hate directed at the show. (I’m sure it’s out there, because this is a comic book thing and the internet is full of awfulness) Mostly, people just seem disappointed that it’s not as Whedon-tastic as it could be.

Personally, I found the pilot so dull that I haven’t bothered to get around to watching subsequent episodes. No hate at all here – just indifference. (though I’m sure I’ll catch up at some point)

By: milaxx

10.30.2013 @ 1:32 AM

Because there were high expectations on this and it’s barely meeting them, whereas Sleepy Hollow with it’s weird premise, smaller network and cast of unknowns has proven to be the better show.

By: Adam

10.29.2013 @ 3:18 PM

I’m glad you covered this topic. Having finally caught up on the episodes off the DVR, I’m pretty much in the same boat you are, and was going to post on Facebook to see whether any of my contemporaries (30-40 year olds) who were excited about the prospects for the show at the start were still watching.

My 12 year old is really into it, and at this point I’m watching more so I can discuss it with him than anything else. Has this become a show for the teenage(-ish) boy set, and if so, is that enough to sustain it?

Thinking about what’s off for me about the show, you summed it up well when you said that it has too casual a vibe. I’m missing not just a sense of urgency, but also a creativity in how they resolve the difficult situations they put the cast in. Hopefully those are both things they can address. (How many episodes were already made before it aired? How long before they can start to factor in any mid-season corrections for these type of problems?)

By: Callahan

10.29.2013 @ 3:21 PM

It’s a superhero show without superheroes. It would be like Breaking Bad without Walt and Jesse.

By: Aigarius

10.29.2013 @ 3:29 PM

It’s like Breaking Bad without Al Capone … oh, wait …

By: Callahan

10.29.2013 @ 3:21 PM

It’s a superhero show without superheroes. It would be like Breaking Bad without Walt and Jesse.

By: Callahan

10.29.2013 @ 3:35 PM

Sorry. I suck.

By: Aigarius

10.29.2013 @ 3:23 PM

This is basically a day-to-day reality of a spy agency. Not every day in CIA is a Bond-style escapade. Those are like once-a-decade events. Most of the work is an almost boring drudge of minor events ticking by. Same here – epic battles happen rarely. Most agents spend most of their time waiting for a call, investigating lost “paperclips of ancient gods” and filing expense reports.
This is how life is. Deal with it. Not every person seems “deep” at first, but everyone has his own texture.

By: Darkdoug

10.29.2013 @ 3:41 PM

But there is a reason why we have TV – because no one wants to watch that stuff. That is the reality we all live with. Even The Wire or Breaking Bad didn’t feature their cops typing up warrants or incident reports or commitment papers or their drug dealers going about their day to day routine, except to highlight how unusual the particular event they are showing is. I read an article once pointing out that superhero movies spend way too much time portraying the origin, when no other action genre does this. We never see badass detectives at the police academy or commando characters in boot camp, but we have to see multiple versions of a kid getting bit by a spider, or seeing his parents shot in an alley or getting put into a rocket to Earth.

Agents of SHIELD should spend less time being a superhero property (with the boring, ramping up crap) and more being an action story.

By: Col Bat Guano

10.29.2013 @ 5:56 PM

Yeah, I don’t think anyone wants to watch a superhero TV show that goes for reality. Might be the ultimate contradiction in terms.

By: David

10.30.2013 @ 4:09 AM

It’s not once-a-decade events or rare epic battles. In the SHIELD comics, Fury was constantly going on exciting adventures. I don’t expect a show to be able to match it visually/budget-wise, but I’d hope they could have the sense of urgency/excitement that the stronger comics have had.

Also, why would the spin-off of an action franchise be about filing expense reports? While that could be a good meditative drama, that’s not what I want from an action-adventure show (and given that there are fight scenes in every episode, I think they’re aiming more for Strike Back and less for Rectify).

By: Dr. Dunkenstein

10.29.2013 @ 3:33 PM

Honestly, they’ve made SHIELD so dull they really should have made a Damage Control show in it’s place. If your budget is too tight or legal matters too thorny to actually show any interesting characters or ideas from the Marvel universe at least let our Characters talk about them.

“Hey, did you hear that Galactus was in town last night?”

“Yeah, he leveled the Chrysler building”

“Huh. So you figure that means some overtime coming our way or…”

By: milaxx

10.30.2013 @ 1:35 AM

At this point that might be even more interesting than what we have now.

By: Dezbot

10.29.2013 @ 3:35 PM

Every character except Coulson and May needs to go. FitzSimmons is irritating and Ward & Skye are boring. Also, just tell us already that Coulson’s an LMD and let use see the fallout from that.

By: HistoryofMatt

10.29.2013 @ 3:41 PM

FWIW:

Does anyone think Whedon the Lessor and his life partner Maurissa Tacheron are waiting for Coby Smulders to be released from the shell of a show that used to be How I Met Your Mother in order to pair her and Coulson up on some globe-trotting, ass-kicking adventures?

Because that’s my hope.

Oh, and that Whedon the Lesser and Maurissa Tacheron actually get better at that tricky writing thing.

By: evolution1085

10.29.2013 @ 4:17 PM

Jed and Marissa get a lot of affection for Doctor Horrible (anything they touched on Dollhouse generally sucked, as did most of Dollhouse), but if their biggest contribution was the music and not the actual plotting, then handing them the keys to a flagship… probably not the best call.

By: Robin

10.29.2013 @ 4:09 PM

It’s interesting that the CW seems to have become a go-to network for genre TV (Vampire Diaries, Originals, Arrow, Tomorrow People, Supernatural).

I wonder if The Avengers were on CW if the show would be what fans wanted it to be — an actual comic book superhero show.

By: ka1iban

10.29.2013 @ 4:20 PM

Q.U.E.S.T.I.O.N: Is there a reason that this show can’t use established comics characters and elements? I get the conflict with using stuff that belongs to others studios (the X-Men, et al.) and even not wanting to make TV-budget casting decisions for possible future movie contenders (look! Antonio Sabato Jr. is Dr. Strange!), but why can’t they be using each week as a chance to paint in the corners of their shared universe? AIM or a modern Hydra seems like a natural adversary for this show and from the Contessa or Daisy, hell, even Scorpio, there’s plenty of ancillary SHIELD characters they could be introducing and exploring. Plenty of fan-service opportunities are not being taken here.

By: HistoryofMatt

10.29.2013 @ 4:25 PM

Probably for the same reason why Justice League Unlimited was not allowed to use Batman’s Rogue Gallery (Mark Hamill’s The Joker was sorely missed for those three seasons):

Because another show (the generally terrible The Batman) was using them.

Also, it’s common for DC TV properties to not be allowed to use characters that will appear in the films. Though this is being broken for The Flash.

So maybe they’re playing by those same rules at Marvel/Disney/ABC?

By: prettok

10.30.2013 @ 3:00 AM

What other television show is using SHIELD characters?

By: David

10.30.2013 @ 4:16 AM

That doesn’t really work though, because Justice League Unlimited was still allowed to use characters from the DCU. The problem people have is that there haven’t really been many characters from the comics that aren’t either a super brief cameo, deepish cuts or just familiar names placed on unrelated characters. So far it’s been Gravitron and brief cameos by Hill and Fury (and I guess Coulson since he’s in the 616 now). There’s talk about another SHIELD agent from the comics appearing in the show later on in the season, but for now it’s only a rumor.

By: klg19

10.29.2013 @ 4:21 PM

I’m a huge Joss Whedon fan (despite the missteps of Dollhouse), a huge comics fan (albeit not so big on superheroes), and a huge Clark Gregg fan (from Sports Night to New Christine to wherever)–but I quit this show after the second episode.

The two leads are boring, not enough Coulson, only occasional sparkling Joss banter, and nothing in the story to invest in. A big ol’ lemon, in my view.

By: HistoryofMatt

10.29.2013 @ 4:26 PM

Realize that this is NOT Joss Whedon.

It’s Jed Whedon.

Not the same Whedon.

By: Sherry

10.29.2013 @ 4:42 PM

A big AGREED to this entire article. I’m not loving SHIELD yet. I like parts of it, on occasion, and of course I like Coulson (because Clark Gregg won me over way back when on Sports Night), but none of the other main characters have immediately clicked with me the way they have on other Whedon programs. I mean, I fell in love with Willow and Xander and Giles and everyone from episode 1 of Buffy. I fell for the entire cast of Firefly right away as well (even Jayne, once I’d seen the Serenity 2-part pilot, out of order). With SHIELD, I just feel like the characters (or maybe the actors chosen to play the roles) are too generic and bland. Not enough quirky and “very human” qualities to make them stand out to me and capture my heart. The only one I could see enjoying is Ming-Na’s character, who does kick ass, but instead the show seems to focus more on the whole Skye and Ward thing, and I’m just not interested in them. And the two computer geeks just don’t seem to have enough “something” to grab me. Alan Tudyk did more to make an impact within seconds with his character Wash than these 2 have done in several episodes. I’m just not feeling it. And I really, really want to.

By: Claudia

10.29.2013 @ 5:07 PM

Alan, you capture my ambivalence about the series. I want it to be better but I keep watching because I hope it finds its feet soon. I hate the Chloe Bennet character. Fitz/Simmons are neither here nor there. Ward needs to more lethal or more personable; I can’t figure out which. Either way I’m in for now, but not for the rest of the ABC Tuesday night lineup.

By: srpad

10.29.2013 @ 5:16 PM

I was hoping this would be more akin to Astro City, that being stories about how regular people handle living in a world of Super Heroes. When the Hulk throws a car through a building, what happens if you work in that building? What if it was your car? What is the world like when people can leave Death Rays just lying around? Stuff like that. We seem instead to get just warmed over Sci Fi plots.

The show is not bad exactly; it just doesn’t seem to be offering anything new or compelling. Still watching though. There is a lot of talent behind there scenes there so I have hope they will make it better.

By: LizT

10.29.2013 @ 5:23 PM

In addition to your AWRY points, which I agree with, I also think the score needs to change. I usually love Bear McCreary’s work (BSG is one of the greatest TV scores ever), but I find his music is just way over the top, and makes everything feel extra cheesy. Maybe if the score were more restrained, the show (and action cues especially) would play better. Or at least less like Magnum PI.

By: Slushy

10.30.2013 @ 5:29 AM

AGREED. The music makes everything seem so incredibly cheesy. It doesn’t fit the MCU at all. Haha, yeah the 80s tv music is a great comparison.

By: ed w

10.29.2013 @ 5:52 PM

Alan, I’d like to hear your opinion on the Agent Carter one-shot on the Iron Man 3 blu-ray. It is only 10-15 minutes long but has all the style, acting and tension that Agents of Shield lacks. Including a dynamite potential opening credits thrown in as the closing credits for the one-shot.

This proves to me they could make an interesting series if they tried, and possibly if they limited it to 13 episodes a season as well.

By: Josh

10.29.2013 @ 6:05 PM

I like Chloe Bennet on this show. I believe that her character is smart and conflicted. She’s pretty good at putting across the Whedon-style dialogue. Compare her to Megan Boone on The Blacklist, who just seems completely out of her depth and isn’t at all convincing. Watching Boone try to act tough just annoys the hell out of me.

That said, I agree that the show’s been a disappointment so far, and this “finding the parents” motivation that they’ve revealed just feels hackneyed. and dull.

By: louisjab

10.29.2013 @ 6:32 PM

They may have made a mistake by making Coulson the main character and the head of the team. They had to change his personality a little bit to adjust him to his new role, and that made the character less interesting.
During the Nick Fury cameo, he returned to his old personality and that made me realize that I didn’t think the character was such a good fit for the lead role. Coulson works better when bouncing off strong characters, that’s why his scenes with Melinda May are my favorite, because she has the strong personality and Coulson can go back to being second fiddle.

By: const56

10.29.2013 @ 7:27 PM

I agree with 99% here Alan. But I don’t agree that Nick Fury’s mystique is all gone. That’s just hyperbole.

Bottom line: I do hope the powers that be make this show more interesting. It’s definitely background TV for me.

By: SlackerInc

10.29.2013 @ 9:27 PM

I’m yet again surprised to see no one really commenting on what to me is the elephant in the room and that is Alan’s last point (Y). There are a lot of things that are tough to guarantee an advance when making a TV show: good writing, good chemistry amongst the cast, etc. But you can guarantee a decent budget, and they clearly did not unless someone is embezzling it.

I just don’t understand it at all, and I don’t understand either why the press aren’t constantly quizzing the PTB about this. The Marvel movies are event movies that stand above–or at the very least, alongside–their cinematic competition as dazzling big-budget spectacles. Why would there for a into television be any different? I don’t mean that the budget should be at the same level, but it should be proportional. This show should look like one of the slickest, best cinematography, best special-effects shows on TV; instead, as Alan said, it is in the other direction where it doesn’t even look up to major network par and instead looks like something from SyFy or USA or the networks in the 1980s.

I keep beating this drum, but not only does that lack of budget hurt this show, it tarnishes the Marvel brand overall and could do more damage to their overall bottom-line than the modest revenues they bring in from the show.

If they are trying to use the Marvel established brand as a cash cow here and add to their profit by doing it on the cheap, that is incredibly shortsighted and wrongheaded. Smarter would be if anything to take the opposite approach, at least in the early going: make the show very expensive and dynamite looking, juice up the ratings so there is a lot of hype about Marvel conquering TV as well as comics and movies. And then even if they spent so much making the show that the actual profits are minimal, they have still helped their brand. Much like Amazon sells their Kindle Fires at a loss because it builds up their ecosystem.

After a while, they could ease up on their spending and get more profit extracted from the show, especially if they could reuse some expensive shots the way the old 1970s Battlestar Galactica would reuse their nifty Viper launch sequence over and over in multiple episodes.

By: smreyno

10.29.2013 @ 10:32 PM

I don’t think all the problems with this part of the show are strictly budgetary. Disney and Marvel can throw all the piles of money they want at this show, but it still has to be made on a weekly TV schedule, which is punishing when it comes to refining special effects work. This is part of what ultimately killed “Terra Nova” (not a show I liked or miss, but). It couldn’t churn out good-looking dinosaur effects on a TV schedule.

Don’t get me wrong, I think “SHIELD” could be doing better in this regard and I don’t doubt budget constraints are part of what’s contributing to the mediocrity. It all just feels like part of a bigger problems. It feels to me like everyone behind the show is playing to not lose rather than to win, so everything is as mediocre and watered-down as possible.

By: Brandon

10.29.2013 @ 10:42 PM

I get what you’re saying about it being on a broadcast network with some conglomerates backing it, but this is ABC, where Once Upon a Time [and its spin-off] have some of the cheapest looking CGI on television.

By: Mulderism

10.29.2013 @ 10:49 PM

I’ve been thinking about this for a little while.

SHIELD is the glue that binds all the Marvel films together. Creating a TV about it was a great idea. It lets Marvel expand on the SHIELD universe without having to devote a lot of time to it in their feature films. It should complement the films and act as a bridge to them.

Five episodes into the series, all I know about SHIELD is still mainly information given in the movies. I don’t know anything more about SHIELD except that a bunch of agents fly around in a plane 24/7 for some reason. Scooby Doo in a plane (very Whedon-esq by the way).

One of Joss Whedon’s strengths that hasn’t been discussed much is his approach to TV. He set up each season of Buffy (and Angel) as a season arch. A big-bad was introduced and by the end of the season they had dealt with it. He had an overall 5 season arc for Buffy, but if the show had been cancelled before that, there wouldn’t be a lot of dangling threads. Seasons were pretty well self contained. When Buffy was renewed after season 5 he had to plan new arcs and the end of the series was epic and fitting.

Although Joss Whedon wrote and directed the pilot, I don’t really see any of his trademarks in any of the other episodes. I don’t know who or what they are fighting or even accomplishing. It just seems like a series of unconnected episodes that frankly could be played in any order and it wouldn’t matter. What is Joss Whedon’s role in this show beyond the pilot? Did he map out a season arc? Did anybody?

The showrunners had a big challenge going into this. They knew that there would be a built in audience from the movies. But since they couldn’t put the Avengers in, they needed something to keep the audience engaged. So far this has been pretty underwhelming.

By: Chris

10.29.2013 @ 10:55 PM

To be fair, Chloe Bennett in her underwear was the best part of that episode

By: Elevation

10.30.2013 @ 4:51 AM

Best moment in Marvel history.

By: Chris

10.29.2013 @ 10:55 PM

To be fair, Chloe Bennett in her underwear was the best part of that episode

By: bearcouch

10.29.2013 @ 10:58 PM

Thank God you’re shitting on the show because who knows who the SHIELD creative team listens to. Is it the ratings or Joss or people like you, Alan? I’m sticking with it, but g’damn is it an awful show. At least get rid of the two scientists. I don’t understand why techies always have to be quirky and in this case extremely annoying.

By: Patricia

10.29.2013 @ 11:03 PM

All good points, Alan. We have it all on the DVR, but have barely made it through Ep 2. It’s just dull.

By: cadfile

10.30.2013 @ 4:17 AM

I was expecting more but instead got another version of the recently canceled “Leverage” that starred Tim Hutton